I'm really pleasantly surprised that the 2.93GHz Core i7 875K at $342 is cheaper yet has more features than the 2.93GHz Core i7 870 at $562. Although I'm guessing that's only temporary as the upcoming 3.06GHz Core i7 880 will probably take over the $562 price point, with the Core i7 870 dropping down to $284 and the Core i7 860 being phased out. There's also a Core i5 760 to replace the Core i5 750.Reply

Not covered so much on these websites but I slurged on an I7 965 when I7's were new, becuase it was unlocked, even though I knew it did not have any extra head room than the cheap chips in the family. The reason I did this was so that I could use the I7's new turbo feature to overclock on demand instead of having to use static timings to overclock. With unlocked I7's and the right motherboard you can change the value of the turbo mulipliers to be more than just one or two steps.

So for my chip if I have all 4 cores in use my turbo muliplier is set to x29 (3800 ghz, only using factory voltages at the moment) and higher amounts when less cores are in use. So when not doing anything my CPU clocks itself to 1.6 GHz and runs at 3.2 GHz if not doing too much and then clocks itself to 3.8GHz when extra power is needed.

So I really welcome Intel putting out these cheaper unlocked CPU's, as next time when I want to overclock using the turbo funtionality I won't have to fork out for an Extreme Edition again.

Also I would love to see more coverage of this type of overclocking that it is new with the Nathelems, Before it was only the I7 Extreme Edition chips that could do it, but now that are more options avaliable, maybe Anandtech could do an article taking about it.Reply

Hello guys!I was really looking forward to Intel -K material. But the whole bunch of "i5 540" is more than an annoyance. It is downright embarrassing and I would urge you to re-read any future texts, as I am really not interested in reading stuff when so little time is put into the text. Really a shame since the content is looking good.Reply

If you wonder why Intel does this, it most likely boils down to two letters: BE. They were never priced as if they came straight out of Absurdistan. And perhaps Intel felt a little itch because of that...Reply

As the graphs state - this is VCC/VTT power only, the two major power rails of this architecture. The 12V ATX fan headers and PCIe 12V only on the E659 motherboard. Power to DDR3 is not something I focused on but may do in a future piece (there will be a frequency proportional rise in power provided timings are not changed). A very crude guess - I'd expect the rise over stock to be around 5 watts on the DRAM side in this frequency band (and total draw to be no more than 10~15w). Although figures would differ according to the scaling capabilities of various modules.

Other than that, there's not much else aside from CPU PLL which is specified at around 1.1 amps at 1.8V (around 2-3 watts tops).Reply

Time permitting I'd be interested in seeing those numbers as well. I understand your desire to measure power consumption closer to the source. My concern is that increased power consumption from the secondary items you're not measuring is a black box; while the AC-DC conversion loss in the PSU from measuring power at the wall can be mostly corrected away by looking at what the efficiency rating of the PSU used in the test setup is.Reply

Time permitting I'd be interested in seeing those numbers as well. I understand your desire to measure power consumption closer to the source. My concern is that increased power consumption from the secondary items you're not measuring is a black box; while the AC-DC conversion loss in the PSU from measuring power at the wall can be mostly corrected away by looking at what the efficiency rating of the PSU used in the test setup is.Reply

I prefer to keep things at the DC level. There are plenty of articles covering wall level consumption with your standard kill-a-watt type unit (and they also state the PSU used so users can factor out the losses if they know the effective efficiency curve). I think you are worrying too much about the lesser rails. Sure they will make interesting reading at some point - but there is nothing that pulls more than a couple of amps so the effects on power consumption will not be huge.

I just ran tests on the 3.3V and 5V rails. At stock the combined power consumption of these two rails on the E659. Bear in mind this is an enthusiast level board (higher switching losses due to higher switching speeds on VDIMM, plus using an NF200 for PEG multiplexing):

That's a 1 Watt increase over stock speeds under load with an overclock of 1GHz on the CPU (running QPI over 4GHz). Hardly worth writing about. Do note - the effective change will vary from board to board according to VRM switching efficiency (which is coming into play if you look at the deltas between idle and load). Of course, I am not including things like HDD's etc although, some of the static 3.3V and 5V rail consumption is due to the GPU (GTX 275) which also draws a little power from that rail.

Setting aside typos, I know wall of text is to be avoided but this felt almost like the opposite problem. Additional clicks for additional adviews. Clearly you didn't like what you saw out of the chips despite the voltage improvements evident in the more modest chip. Yet in the end despite devoting 1/9th of the coverage to it, you reward your recommendation to the pricier chip just one page after showing it severely underperforming its non-K analogue in both overclocking and voltage.

I have said it before and I think its worth mentioning again, clearly there is a lo of passion for tech in the growing AnandTech team, but maybe adding a team member whose passion is writing and across whose hands every article will pass would give the site that extra polish that elevates it from other tech sites.

At first I thought the same thing (saying nothing at all in the final page about the 655K does leave me puzzled as it is good), but Rijinder did clarify his recommendation for the 875K by saying PRICE. He is saying for the price of these chips and where they fall in line with the rest of the offerings from AMD and INTEL, the 875K is in a sweet spot. Remember the 655K is a dual-core,4 thread chip for $215 (lots of competition from both camps), while the 875K is a quad-core, 8 thread chip for under $350.

In the end (and after re-reading the conclusion and article) I think the last page needs to have a bit more meat behind it. The data in the article itself is very detailed, but the final wrap-up needs some work. But honestly, since it's a free site, I'll take the good data and sketchy conclusions (I tend to make my own).

The actual "break point" is at 3.962GHz to be precise. A 9W step to 3.986GHz, followed by a 11w step to 4.009GHz. Anything higher than this and I'm loading up at 85C (according to DTS) and I can't get Linpack stable. I've extended x to show the 4.009GHz point. We'll endeavour to plot some more curves featuring some of the parts you mention if time allows.

Why does this make any sense on the 1156 platform? Intel created 2 different platforms, 1366 enthusiast and 1156 mainstream. Why is this on 1156 and not on 1366? Does that make any sense since 1366 is supposed to be the enthusiast/OC/hardcore version?

Keep in mind I'm not arguing the viability of either socket. I'm just saying that Intel designed 1366 to be the high end, so why do this for the low end, but keep the unlocked chips for 1366 at $1k?Reply

I'm an AMD fanboy and my friend bought an i7 930 and 2000mhz ram and asked me to overclock it. I've never played with an i7 before, but surprisingly it was easy as cake to get it to 4.1ghz and 1850mhz ram on air and still have QPI overclocked past 6.4 dont quite remember i dont use the i7. Point is, with those achievements on a 930 I don't see a need for unlocked multiplier or k series.Reply

"This is another of those situations where we’ve had to make an eleventh-hour conference call with Intel to work out what and who these processors are aimed at."

How about you make your own minds up instead?

First Anand did it with the awful clarkdale now you are doing it with these similarly awful cpu's. If intel gives you shit, TELL US ITS SHIT. Take a look around the web and see how poorly these cpu's were received elsewhere.

My respect for AT is at an all time low - there is no longer any pretence that you aren't an intel shill.Reply

simply, the new unlocked chips does not offer real advantages compared to their siblings except for dynamic overclocking and the one posted which is little better turboboost speeds.yet, the additional cost compared to the performance of AMD's black edition processors is not that reasonable. Reply

It would have been nice if we could see the power consumption when dual cascade cooling has been used (both in stock and overclocking). I'm interested to see the leakage scalling with temperature!Reply

Finally the 855K - this chip is limited to 4GHz even on water cooling. BCLK overclocking is not going to change that. 167 BCLK at DDR3 1670 is nowhere near stressful for the Lynnfield IMC. Multiplier overclocking is NOT going to make any difference to the clock speed limitation.

The motherboard is EVGA's E659 - works fine with my i7 870 ES taking it to 4.4GHz Linpack stable. It's the CPU that is the limiting factor here. Bear in mind that not all articles you've read will have stability checked stability with Linpack as well.

I finally got around to getting the 875k. Using the brand new Real Temp 3.60, I can now adjust the Turbo Boost multipliers so that under load all four cores go to 30x. That means with a bclk of 134MHz I now see a cpu clock range from 1206MHz on idle to 4020MHz on load. Nice.

But Intel advertised an adjustable memory multiplier as well. Since my memory is rated at DDR3-2000 I would like to push it beyond the 1608MHz that 12x134 allows. So, is it possible to push the memory multiplier beyond 12x? Does the 875k have that in it?

I have checked a number of reviews and found nothing other than a repetition of Intel's statements that the memory multiplier is unlocked. Well, is it?Reply